Case study:Bullhead Dock and Bellamy’s Wharf - Rotherhithe

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 51° 30' 7", -0° 3' 13"
Edit location
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site
Themes Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity
Country England
Main contact forename Joanna
Main contact surname Heisse
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


Aim of scheme:
- enhancement of tidal defences
- conservation enhancements
- recreation provision
Work undertaken:
- cleaning up of existing foreshore
- creation of new shingle beach
- attachment of horizontal and vertical timbers to promote algal growth
- reed planting in Bullhead dock
- reducing size of jetty increasing direct light to the foreshore The site is adjacent to the River Thames in Rotherhithe. Bellamys Wharf and Bullhead Dock were a sand and gravel unloading facility with a high jetty.
The initial proposal was to infill both docks, however only a small encroachment was allowed to enable the rebuilding of a new river wall at the other dock.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Subcatchment:Thames (London) Other case studies in this subcatchment: Petersham Meadows


Site

Name River Thames
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m) 325 m
0.325 km
32,500 cm
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Riparian development
Hydromorphology Substrate conditions
Biology Phytoplankton, Macrophytes
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications Introducing large woody debris
Floodplain / River corridor Reedbed creation
Planform / Channel pattern
Other New shingle beach
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information